3,
CHELMSFORD ROAD, NEW DELHI -110055
No.
IV/NHR/7th CPC/CORRES/Pt. V
Dated:
05/02/2015
The Chairman,
Seventh Central Pay
Commission,
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Bhawan,
IIFT, Block B
(B-14/A),
Qutab Institutional
Area,
New Delhi 110016
Dear Sir,
Sub: Inter-action
meeting with the Seventh Central Pay Commission on NFIR’s memorandum-reg.
Ref: NFIR’s letter
No.IV/NFIR/7th CPC/CORRES/Pt. V dated 02/08/2014.
Federation vide its
letter dated 02/08/2014, addressed to the Secretary, Seventh Central Pay
Commission had made following suggestions with regard to holding interaction
meetings:
a) Inter-action
meetings may be fixed giving us reasonable advance intimation to enable us to
reschedule our other programmes,
b) Meeting/hearing may
be fixed department wise to facilitate us to meet the Pay Commission along with
the representatives of the conccrned department/category.
c) In the Railways,
there are eight major departments with hundreds of categories. Eight different
dates for explaining our case may kindly be considered.
d) Inter-action
meetings may also be convened for explaining the case of miscellaneous and
isolated categories in Railways.
e) Separate date and
time be provided to facilitate the NFIR to explain uniqueness of railways as
well unique nature of duties of railway employee in general.
Federation is yet to
receive response from the Seventh Central Pay Commission.
In this connection,
NFIR desires to mention that the 6th CPC had allotted a total time of 28 hours
to us in different spells/different dates to explain the case of Railway
employees belonging to various categories in different departments. Federation
trusts that similar time slots would be provided to us by the 7th CPC as well.
NFIR. therefore, once
again requests the Hon’ble Chairman Seventh Central Pay Commission to arrange
to allot adequate time slots and convey to the Federation.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(Dr.M.Raghavaiah)
General Secretary
Supreme Court
seeks Govt’s views on the legality of Aadhaar – Petition filed on the ground
that it violated personal liberties and privacy.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the government’s
views on the unique identification or Aadhaar programme that was started by its
predecessor as a fresh petition sought to question its legality on the ground
that it violated personal liberties and privacy.
A two-judge bench, comprising chief justice of India HL Dattu
and justice AK Sikri, asked solicitor general Ranjit Kumar to revert
to the top court in two weeks with the information but stopped short of issuing
any formal legal notices to the government.
“We read news reports which said the new government was doing a
rethink on the issue,” Dattu observed.
The petition, filed by Bangalore-resident Mathew Thomas, a
former army officer and defence missile scientist turned social activist, had
accused the new government of “slyly” pushing ahead with Aadhaar. He said the
government had insisted on linking bank accounts with Aadhaar for direct
transfer of the LPG subsidy and it was also being used to ensure attendance by
officials. He urged the court to immediately stop this.
“Our democratic constitution does not permit such state
surveillance. UID is the first step towards profiling, tracking and
stereotyping. Mere production of ID cards by people, upon demand by police,
would neither absolve such persons from suspicion, nor would it prevent them
from indulging in criminal activities,” his plea said.
Arguing for Thomas, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium contended
that almost all countries such as the UK and US have scrapped such attempts
following a public uproar over their intrusive nature. Aadhaar is being rolled
out by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a non-statutory
body. It involves collecting biometric information of all citizens and in
return issuing them unique ID or Aadhaar numbers that facilitate the accurate
targeting of social security and in-service benefits. Several activists had
approached the top court seeking a stay.
The court had clarified that Aadhaar should not be insisted upon
while dispensing social security benefits.
The court is, however, yet to take a final call on its fate. The
fresh PIL, filed through lawyer Aishwarya Bhatti, called upon the court to
direct the Centre to destroy all biometric information collected so far.
Collection of data was being undertaken by agencies with suspect
credentials and cards had been issued even to illegal migrants, the PIL
claimed.
The UIDAI couldn’t be set up through mere approval of
the “empowered group of ministers”, it said. All acts that curtail the rights
and liberties of an individual are to be necessarily backed by law, it said.
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, was introduced in
the Lok Sabha and is still pending. However, in the interim, the
authority has been collecting personal information of all citizens, including
army officers and government servants.
Thomas said he had sought information about UIDAI-approved
scanners that were used to collect biometric data but was denied this. A Right
to Information (RTI) query led to the answer that there was “no way of
verifying the country of origin of the companies”, he said.
In the meantime, Maharashtra has made Aadhaar mandatory to pay
bills. Other states use it to record attendance in offices. Delhi has made
Aadhaar necessary for solemnisation and registration of marriages and the
direct transfer of LPG subsidies.
There is no provision for residents to opt out of the UID
project and information once given cannot be destroyed, he said. The former
army officer said that possibility of “illegal residents” wrongly being issued
Aadhaar cards and carrying out espionage activities could not be ruled out. The
scheme would have limited use in checking illegal migration or terrorism, he
said.
The information
collected under the UID scheme is valuable to criminals and this
makes citizens vulnerable as well, he said. There are almost no checks and
balances in sharing of private information, the petitioner said.